Arrest this man
His Himmler hairdo
Is making me feel ill

The problem is that the Constitution remains revered. A system designed to distrust power now entrenches it, protects it from accountability, and makes reform so arduous that stagnation and decay are inevitable

The presidency can be won while losing the popular vote because of the Electoral College. This is not an accident or a bug; it is a deliberate eighteenth century compromise that entrenches minority rule.

The Constitution is obsessed with limiting government but is largely indifferent to outcomes. There is little constitutional commitment to administrative effectiveness. The system incentivises obstruction rather than governance.

Judicial supremacy compounds the problem. Nine unelected justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, appointed for life and insulated from democratic correction, now determine the meaning of vague eighteenth century language on abortion, voting rights, campaign finance, and executive power.

The Bill of Rights contains principles that seem laudable but are deeply problematic. The Second Amendment, for example, has produced gun laws that would be politically unthinkable in any other developed democracy. The Constitution offers no realistic mechanism for change, despite a clear need

The US Constitution was created in good faith, but it was drafted for a small agrarian republic of about 4 million people, not a continental superpower of more than 330 million. Outdated compromises are treated as sacred text, even when they plainly no longer serve a modern society.

The bare minimum, but better than nothing

This May 2014 editorial in The Sun about Nigel Farage said is not racist" to worry about the scale of immigration but it is "racist" to smear Romanians to say you wouldn't want to live next door to a Romanian & "you know the difference" [between a German and a Romanian neigbour]

This is AI though. What’s going on with the bench on the right?

So the question is simple: if the checks were properly done, where’s the evidence Ferrari had the means to pay cash? Transparency matters when a politician’s partner buys his constituency home.

If the money trail looked suspicious, the solicitor had to file a SAR with the National Crime Agency.

If the solicitor didn’t do the checks properly, the SRA could and should take action against them.

By law, her conveyancing solicitor had to check the source of funds under anti-money laundering rules. That means bank statements, inheritance papers, sale contracts etc. This isn’t optional.

When a property is bought in the UK, there are mandatory checks under anti-money laundering (AML) and source of funds regulations. For a cash purchase of nearly £900,000, those checks should have been particularly robust.

If Nigel Farage’s partner owns his constituency home outright, don’t voters deserve a transparent explanation of how it was funded?

How does a person with no obvious assets or high-earning career buy a near-million-pound property outright?